Dear Presidential voters...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2012, 06:42 PM
RE: Dear Presidential voters...
(10-09-2012 11:45 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(05-09-2012 08:09 PM)BryanS Wrote:  My point is leadership matters a lot as well. Here is a current story about Bob Woodward's up and coming book that explores the budget negotiations between Boehner and Obama. I'll highlight some of the wonderful examples of leadership from this president:

Bob Woodward. Hmm..???

After reading the article, I had to go look him up. I was wondering why someone would go out of their way to wrongly characterize a situation, in what looked like an attempt to make Obama look bad. And I'm not always right, but when something looks like a scam or a fraud, it might be one. I ended up finding a pretty credible character witness for this Woodward guy: Christopher Hitchens, one of my favs., described him as a "stenographer to the rich and powerful". Ohhh, so he has done this before; imagine that.

It must be nice to be these people. That's all I'm going to say. It must be nice.

Woodward is not some obscure nobody. And Woodward is no GOP stooge. Did you forget about his and Bernstein's role in exposing Nixon's unethical behavior, leading to Nixon's resignation? Hitchens is criticizing Woodward's narrative style of journalism as boring and pedantic. As for literary style, comparing anyone to Hitchens isn't really fair to the person being compared. On substance, though, Hitchens was not criticizing Woodard. Woodward built up his impeccable credibility as an investigative journalist with his leading role in the Watergate scandal.

It was only in recent years that he has been criticized for the accuracy of his content, and that was for his belief in the WMD intelligence leading up to the most recent Iraq war. That is a judgment he shares with Hitchens who, by the way, continued to defend the conclusions of that intelligence till he departed from us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 07:52 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2012 07:59 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Dear Presidential voters...
(10-09-2012 06:42 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Woodward is not some obscure nobody. And Woodward is no GOP stooge. Did you forget about his and Bernstein's role in exposing Nixon's unethical behavior, leading to Nixon's resignation? Hitchens is criticizing Woodward's narrative style of journalism as boring and pedantic. As for literary style, comparing anyone to Hitchens isn't really fair to the person being compared. On substance, though, Hitchens was not criticizing Woodard. Woodward built up his impeccable credibility as an investigative journalist with his leading role in the Watergate scandal.

It was only in recent years that he has been criticized for the accuracy of his content, and that was for his belief in the WMD intelligence leading up to the most recent Iraq war. That is a judgment he shares with Hitchens who, by the way, continued to defend the conclusions of that intelligence till he departed from us.

"Stenographer to the rich and powerful": That was really the only important part of it.

It's easy to see what I was getting at. I don't know the guy's history well, but Hitchens had a gripe with him for things he said that this guy did frequently in the past, and for something that he appears to be doing again. I wasn't even close to being alive during Nixon and was young during Bush, I haven't studied, at least in great detail, and I don't plan on studying the details of those presidential situations he wrote on (Bush's I'm obviously a lot more familiar with though) or his works in general; but I have been paying attention to Obama's presidency, so this guy can't pull one over on me.

I was especially paying attention during the debt debates. He can probably gather more specific information than me, but I have enough information about the surrounding circumstances to say, undoubtedly, that president Obama deserves a hell of a lot less blame than the GOP: It's not even 50/50, and it definitely should not be pinned on Obama. The deal not closing had absolutely nothing to do with Obama's leadership. Obama did actually come to a deal with the Speaker, and agreed on it. That alone is miraculous given the the political environment, then add in the sacrifices, but ultimately, the Speaker is the one who went back on the deal out of pure politics. That's really the bottom line. We know John Boehner was being controlled: With Eric Cantor moving the mouth, Paul Ryan providing the voice, the Tea Party chanting in the audience, and the 'absolutely no tax increases under any circumstances, period, if you want to keep your job' guys finishing off the puppet show. That was the wall that God built so strong that not even he could knock it down.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it. He could be trying to make the same points I'd make, or better ones, but just going off of the titles, the article you linked, and some other articles, I'd have to say it's seems like he is attempting to paint the GOP in a positive light, while painting Obama negatively. I can't say why he would try to do this, but Hitchens has seemed to lead me on a path to a reasonable assumption. It could be that I'm being unfair to Woodward. Like I said, it could have just been the spin of the article(s). If the same holds true for the book, however, then it could be that Woodward is back to his old games again. It falls in line with how Hitchens described him.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 08:14 PM
RE: Dear Presidential voters...
(10-09-2012 07:52 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(10-09-2012 06:42 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Woodward is not some obscure nobody. And Woodward is no GOP stooge. Did you forget about his and Bernstein's role in exposing Nixon's unethical behavior, leading to Nixon's resignation? Hitchens is criticizing Woodward's narrative style of journalism as boring and pedantic. As for literary style, comparing anyone to Hitchens isn't really fair to the person being compared. On substance, though, Hitchens was not criticizing Woodard. Woodward built up his impeccable credibility as an investigative journalist with his leading role in the Watergate scandal.

It was only in recent years that he has been criticized for the accuracy of his content, and that was for his belief in the WMD intelligence leading up to the most recent Iraq war. That is a judgment he shares with Hitchens who, by the way, continued to defend the conclusions of that intelligence till he departed from us.

"Stenographer to the rich and powerful": That was really the only important part of it.

It's easy to see what I was getting at. I don't know the guy's history well, but Hitchens had a gripe with him for things he said that this guy did frequently in the past, and for something that he appears to be doing again. I wasn't even close to being alive during Nixon and was young during Bush, I haven't studied, at least in great detail, and I don't plan on studying the details of those presidential situations he wrote on (Bush's I'm obviously a lot more familiar with though) or his works in general; but I have been paying attention to Obama's presidency, so this guy can't pull one over on me.

I was especially paying attention during the debt debates. He can probably gather more specific information than me, but I have enough information about the surrounding circumstances to say, undoubtedly, that president Obama deserves a hell of a lot less blame than the GOP: It's not even 50/50, and it definitely should not be pinned on Obama. The deal not closing had absolutely nothing to do with Obama's leadership. Obama did actually come to a deal with the Speaker, and agreed on it. That alone is miraculous given the the political environment, then add in the sacrifices, but ultimately, the Speaker is the one who went back on the deal out of pure politics. That's really the bottom line. We know John Boehner was being controlled: With Eric Cantor moving the mouth, Paul Ryan providing the voice, the Tea Party chanting in the audience, and the 'absolutely no tax increases under any circumstances, period, if you want to keep your job' guys finishing off the puppet show. That was the wall that God built so strong that not even he could knock it down.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it. He could be trying to make the same points I'd make, or better ones, but just going off of the titles, the article you linked, and some other articles, I'd have to say it's seems like he is attempting to paint the GOP in a positive light, while painting Obama negatively. I can't say why he would try to do this, but Hitchens has seemed to lead me on a path to a reasonable assumption. It could be that I'm being unfair to Woodward. Like I said, it could have just been the spin of the article(s). If the same holds true for the book, however, then it could be that Woodward is back to his old games again. It falls in line with how Hitchens described him.

You're mischaracterizing or misunderstanding Hitchens. Hitchens was calling Woodward boring. Compared to Hitchens, most are, but Woodward is held in such high esteem from his career. That it is the kind of criticism one makes to take down someone with more stature than you, when you think that person held in high esteem isn't 'all that'. You didn't notice that the Hitchens quote on the wiki page you must have looked it up on is under the heading "criticisms of style'?

Neither was I alive during the Nixon Presidency. But I know history. Woodward is one of the most important public figures during the Nixon presidency and is the embodiment of the standard all reputable journalists hope to live up to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 09:36 AM
RE: Dear Presidential voters...
(10-09-2012 08:14 PM)BryanS Wrote:  You're mischaracterizing or misunderstanding Hitchens. Hitchens was calling Woodward boring. Compared to Hitchens, most are, but Woodward is held in such high esteem from his career. That it is the kind of criticism one makes to take down someone with more stature than you, when you think that person held in high esteem isn't 'all that'. You didn't notice that the Hitchens quote on the wiki page you must have looked it up on is under the heading "criticisms of style'?

Neither was I alive during the Nixon Presidency. But I know history. Woodward is one of the most important public figures during the Nixon presidency and is the embodiment of the standard all reputable journalists hope to live up to.

Christopher Hitchens Wrote:But that’s the thing about being a gatekeeper. You are Janus, and just as you can kill a story that meets the ordinary test of “objectivity,” so you can also print one that flagrantly flouts that standard. Did I say I wasn’t jealous or resentful? Perhaps I lied a little. Who would not wish to have such freedom?

But I think that if I had it, I might make more use of it. There are various kinds of journalism, of which the best known are the “color” or descriptive, the “objective” or reportorial, and the “muckraking” or investigative. There’s also a new kind, peculiar to Washington, which might be termed “access” or insider journalism. This method involves a trade-off between sources and methods, where anonymously donated high-grade information will at least ensure that the source has his or her side of the story narrated.

The "criticism of style" I was referring to wasn't for being boring. It was for Woodward giving positive spins to certain people (sources). Hitchens might have also considered him boring, I don't know if that's the case, but that is just added on top of the other criticism.

Here is a video.

Here is an article.

Here is another.

Like I said, I don't know what Woodward is doing in this situation, and it would be kind of unfair to judge him without having read the book. However, Christopher Hitchens is clearly attacking the guy's journalistic integrity and credibility. Yes, it's related to his style of "access" journalism, but it's still an attack on content and substance, not calling him boring.

My larger point was that The Price of Politics, a cost that fell on the American people, came from the GOP and the Speaker. From what you posted, and what I've read elsewhere in articles, it looks as if Woodward is giving a favorable spin to the GOP, against Obama. It would be unfair to say that Obama isn't to blame at all, but overall, and I'm not the only one saying this, left or right on the political spectrum, the majority of the blame goes on the GOP. If Woodward displayed a different spin on that reality, either by leaving some stuff out or adding stuff in, it's safe to say that's another strike against him as a journalist.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 10:41 AM
RE: Dear Presidential voters...
(10-09-2012 06:42 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Woodward is not some obscure nobody.

Bryan, you don't understand. If someone is critical of Obama, or fails to be positive enough, he is wrong. If it's someone with a previously stellar reputation for fairness and accuracy, they are now wrong. If it's someone with a 40-year track record of hunting down the facts and reporting the positives and negatives of Republican and Democrat administrations alike, they are wrong if any findings suggest anything negative about Obama.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 11:57 AM
RE: Dear Presidential voters...
(11-09-2012 10:41 AM)Jeff Wrote:  Bryan, you don't understand. If someone is critical of Obama, or fails to be positive enough, he is wrong. If it's someone with a previously stellar reputation for fairness and accuracy, they are now wrong. If it's someone with a 40-year track record of hunting down the facts and reporting the positives and negatives of Republican and Democrat administrations alike, they are wrong if any findings suggest anything negative about Obama.

I think I was being pretty clear about what I was getting at. There is no need to be a bitch. I only questioned an assumed bias and objectivity of the work, and I also pointed out that as a feeling I got from the articles, or posts, and not the book itself.

If you're too patriot for facts, that is fine, but some of us prefer integrity, objectivity and truthfulness.

You also have to keep in mind that you're the guy who rummages through Fox News and conservative opinion pieces, even going for a Dinesh D'Souza article, in order to justify your hatred and animosity toward Obama.

Your inability to find and provide meaningful and constructive criticisms can't be ruled off as others being close-minded. You have to think about which it is; that's something I question all of the time. I'd be willing to listen to anyone with a worth while argument, but you can't really expect anyone to put up with bullshit. If you truly believe your opinion is what is true, provide explanation, facts and argument as to why.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Marine Le Pen Most Popular Presidential Candidate in France Res Publica 40 422 05-08-2014 02:36 PM
Last Post: kim
  How Single Issue Voters can Control JAH 1 296 01-06-2013 02:44 PM
Last Post: BryanS
  Non-Religious Voters Won Obama's Reelection Science Believer 13 705 14-12-2012 11:41 AM
Last Post: Chas
  Presidential Debate Skype Chat Phaedrus 12 624 24-10-2012 09:01 PM
Last Post: ClydeLee
  Controlling the voters; the media's role in politics Buddy Christ 18 1,012 20-10-2012 11:57 PM
Last Post: Diablo
  The OFFICIAL TTA 2012 US Presidential Election Poll HDT 68 3,256 04-09-2012 10:22 AM
Last Post: Logica Humano
  Atheist group targets presidential candidates' faith with billboards Erxomai 5 522 18-08-2012 10:31 PM
Last Post: Matthew Laramore
Forum Jump: